NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Appellee
,

v.

RO BERT DAVID PEARSALL , Appellant

.
No. 1 CA-CR 21-0398

A ppeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300CR201801375 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Phoenix By Deborah Celeste Kinney Counsel for Appellee

L aw Office of Nicole Countryman
, Phoenix By Nicole Countryman C ounsel for Appellant FILED 3-10-2022STATE v. PEARSALL Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B A I L E Y , Judge:

¶1 Pearsall appeals his sentence , arguing the superior court erred in finding he had historical prior felony conviction s. For the following

reasons , we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 After a jury trial, Pearsall was convicted of attempted first

degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. At sentencing, the State alleged Pearsall had three historical prior felony convictions and submitted certified court records for three prior cases a nd a Department of Corrections (“DOC”) packet listing Pearsall’s name, date of birth , social security number , photograph, and conviction record

. Defense counsel did not objec t and the court admitted the exhibit

. ¶3 The superior court found the evidence supported the State’s allegation of historical prior felony conviction s and sentenced Pearsall as a category t hree repetitive offender. See Ariz

. Rev

. Stat

. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-703(C). The court sentenced Pearsall to three concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 28 years.

¶4 We have jurisdiction over Pearsall’s timely appeal under Ar ticl e 6, S ection 9 , of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12

- 120.21(A) (1) , 13-4031 and 13 -4033 (A)( 4).

DISCUSSION
¶5 Pearsall challenges the court’s finding that he is the person to whom the conviction records refer

. We review the superior court’s finding of a historical prior felony conviction de novo

. State v. Rasul , 216 Ariz. 491, 496 , ¶ 20 (App. 2007). Because Pearsall did not object to the State’s evidence , we review for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron , 1 68 Ariz. 153, 154 (1991) ( holding that the failure to raise an objection in the superior court waives all but fundamental error review ). Imposition of an illegal
sentence , however, is always fundamental error

. State v. Thues , 203 Ariz.STATE v. PEARSALL Decision of the Court

3 339, 350, ¶ 4 (App. 2002) (citation omitted). Thus, if the court erroneously enhanced Pearsall’s sentence, we must vacate his sentence. Id.
¶6 The S tate must prove a prior conviction by clear and convincing evidence and admit “ positive identification establishing that th e accused is the same person who previously was convicted, as well as evidence of the conviction itself. ” State v. Cons , 208 Ariz. 409, 415, ¶¶ 15 -16 (App. 2004) (citation omitted). The proper procedure is for the State to offer a certified copy of the pr ior conviction and establish that the defendant is the person to whom the document refers

. Id. at ¶ 16 ; State v. Hauss , 140 Ariz. 230, 231 (1984) (citation s omitted ) (holding that admission of documentary evidence is mandatory in most cases to prove prior convictions).

¶7 Contrary to Pearsall’s contention
, the State need not call a fingerprint exper t, n or any other witness, to testify. See State v. Solis , 236 Ariz. 242, 24 7-49, ¶¶ 17, 20-22 (App. 2014) (holding that DOC record with photograph s matching other admitted documents was sufficient and no testimonial evidence was required ). The State sufficiently proved the p r ior convictions when it submitted the certified court records and Pearsall’s DOC packet

. See id. ; Hauss , 140 Ariz. at 231. Pearsall contends the photograph in the DOC packet was outdated and printed in black and white
, but he does not dispute that his name, date of birth
, criminal record, and social security number match ed the information i n the certified conviction records

. Notably, Pearsall does not argue that he is not the person who was previously convicted

. See Solis , 236 Ariz. at 248

- 49, ¶ 22 (citation omitted)

. Pearsall has not shown the court erred in finding he had historical prior felony convictions.

CONCLUSION
¶8 For the reasons stated above, we affirm Pearsall’s sentence.